TUPE LOOPHOLE LANDS EMPLOYERS WITH UNEXPECTED OBLIGATIONS
6 July 2011 Professional Pensions has written an interesting article on the transfer of pension benefits in relation to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) regulations. “Under TUPE, survivor benefits in an occupational pension scheme do not transfer where the original scheme provided member pensions and survivor benefits, but employers with defined contribution schemes are increasingly setting up stand-alone life assurance. The TUPE exemption only applies to survivor benefits in an occupational pension scheme, so where survivor benefits are under a stand-alone scheme, this is not an occupational scheme and so the survivor benefits do transfer.” Follow this link to read the full article from Professional Pensions 6 July 2011 In this case the employer needed to cut costs and increase profit so asked employees to accept a pay reduction of 5 per cent. One employee refused and was dismissed from a job he had held for the previous seven years. The employment tribunal found the dismissal unfair. Daniel Barnett’s Employment Bulletin reports: The EAT (Langstaff J) has handed down its decision in Garside & Laycock v Booth , which is authority for the proposition that the question whether a dismissal is fair for "some other substantial reason", where the dismissal is for failure to accept wage-cutting proposals, is whether it was reasonable for the employer to dismiss, rather than asking whether it was reasonable for the employee to accept lesser terms offered to him. In this case the employer needed to cut costs and increase profit. It asked employees to accept a pay reduction of 5%. Mr Booth refused and was dismissed from a job he had held for the previous seven years. Out of 77 employees he was the only one, by the time of dismissal, who held out against the change. The employment tribunal found the dismissal unfair. But the EAT held the tribunal had gone wrong in a number of areas. Firstly, it was incorrect to say the test was that an employer may only offer less favourable terms if the very survival of the business depended on it. Catamaran Cruisers Ltd v Williams [1994] IRLR 386, on which the tribunal purported to rely, was not authority for such a burdensome requirement. Nor was it correct to assess the reasonableness of the employer's decision by asking what was reasonable for the employee to do. The test was whether the employer, having established "some other substantial reason", acted reasonably. DISMISSAL FOR REFUSING PAY CUT
DUTY TO CONSIDER REQUEST TO WORK BEYOND RETIREMENT
20 July 2011 An employment appeal tribunal has held that a request to remain in employment after the age of 65 must be considered 'in good faith'.
CIPP Policy News Journal
09/10/2012, Page 39 of 234
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker